If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible spam accounts.

I suspect you have edited your main post since I am not seeing the statement which prompted me to suspect you failed to understand that an excess to select groups has been useful to civilization. This failure to understand the previous utility to civilization was my original concern. But, separately, "Beyond the point of not enough" is not addressing the principle of why a priest class has, in the past, evolved civilization. The ability to expend excess towards uncertain endeavors provides the potential for unusual advancement. And, if you were to apply this today, you would see this similarly applies, but now to corporations like space-x.
No. I just understand it as a more general principle.

The second comparison is faulty in two ways: 1. a citizen would not necessarily see it as competition, since the citizen would be getting his UBI regardless (much like citizens don't see inflation as taxation). 2. the notion of a threat to the economy should already be acknowledged if it is expected a citizen will oppose immigration, unless we are to think a single level of separation (miscellaneous welfare vs UBI) is currently preventing the citizen from acknowledging that threat. On the first point, we'd first have to assume that the extra time would be spent towards an understanding of economics (more UBI out means more inflation means lower dollar value which means you get less value from your own UBI) and towards political action, instead of the various forms of entertainment. From my observations of people who get extra time, I don't think extra time would lead to these activities. But, say extra time did lead to these activities. From what I've seen, more time does not necessarily increase the depth of self-interested action, but only the breadth. And so, you'd get something like movements to increase the UBI (similar to movements to increase the minimum wage).

Listening to a bit of Alex Jones' show from yesterday, he takes on the view he often does, that of corruption of innocence, that Trump was fooled by those desiring overthrow of Assad, including McCain. This being wrong, however, this spawned an idea. If you observe the previous meeting Trump had with Saudi Arabia, you'd either come to the conclusion that either the Saudi's thought Trump was ignorant about their desire to overthrow Assad having nothing to do with false claimed atrocities, or that Trump was not in outright opposition to overthrowing Assad, despite those atrocities being falsely attributed and staged. Now, the Arab Spring, from the outset, was to any reasonably discerning and informed mind, a construction and not a evolution of rage. This, to me, was apparent in 2011, when Tarpley visited the various countries and confirmed it as a construction. The notion that Trump does not know that previous chemical attacks in Syria were false flag events (despite the white house seemingly releasing a statement to the effect of knowing this in just the past week), and coming to the conclusion that Trump thinks this present chemical attack was the Assad regime, is insane - but, you often get a mixed bag with Alex Jones and other Christians. Instead, we either have a diminution of power of Trump, wherein, perhaps, the deep state told him he has X amount of time to play around at the start of his presidency, and that time has passed (which would make sense given Trump's statement of regret about his efforts towards health care instead of taxes (which presumes either regret upon timing (April or the breaking of congress), or upon future inability)), or this is an agreement between Trump and the McCain faction to allow passage of either health care reform or tax reform or both.

The first "over simplified" was in regards to #2 (and that's not to say there aren't more efficient mechanisms than general excess to provide the innovation that such leisure has provided in the past), and the second was upon "I, an individual man, abjure my natural right to challenge other individuals to natural duel -- a natural right enjoyed by the males of all sexual species. I will also come to the defense of the rights recognized as legitimate by this company." - where instead, societies are upon functional practices ingrained through cultures stemming from necessities and morals, and don't have the hard points of "will defend" or "will not inner-compete", which I suspect might be mentioned by you owing to either that general notion (will defence) from "natural law" or from your suggested ant book on eusocial evolution.
I hadn't seen this particular response of yours, only the one on, go read "The Social Conquest of Earth". I'm afraid the book did not improve my knowledge of how things have progressed since it seems to be for those who have somehow taken the notion that evolution worked upon projections of outcomes by individuals instead of the correct notion, which, to my knowledge, was first formerly presented and accepted by Ilya Romanovich Prigogine, that systems progress in a manner of accumulating persistence, and, in context, this means that a system, including both the individual as a system or a group of individuals as a system, will progress if their traits fit that particular situation in the time.

To preface, I don't read enough of the details to be very accurate with my speculation. The botched Obama's arab spring left us with a stronger Syria-Iran-Russia union, which counteracts the interests of our duplicitous allies Israel and Saudi Arabia. Perhaps yesterday Trump asked Xi, "will you sell bonds in response to our replacing Assad" and the answer was no. Russia's interest is the naval base. That can be maintained without Assad, and perhaps the point of removing Assad is to diminish the Syria-Iran union for future Iran opposition strategies.

UBI means ridiculous taxation (no business growth) or high inflation (goodbye dollar reserve currency). Businesses would see the opportunity of extracting more wealth from new immigrants, and this business interest, like it has already, would be faster acting than the publics' opposition to immigration based on the recognition of negative outcomes.

@1:53:30 : you value what you put effort into. I would estimate public schooling, tv, the internet, video games, etc, have made parenting much less effortful. Similarly, time together builds attachment, which is also diminished by the previous factors.

I've found it much easier to update people's ideologies rather than to find people with matching ideologies. There are various characteristics you should look out for that will either help or hamper this effort. Two main factors are charitability without presentation of charitability and IQ. The practice of the golden rule (not the other one) as an automatic reaction does not appear to be teachable. And, I find people with lower IQ will reset into comfortable opinions despite formerly agreeing on evidence that contradicts those opinions.

"The only reason cartels don't really work in a capitalist system is because "
It's been known since "The Wealth of Nations" made it clear, cartels form naturally in capitalism, and some understanding of history and economics would incline one to presume it was known way before then. There seems some conspiracy by libertarians to deny the various problems of the free market - this being the biggest one.
"critical lack of tribalism among white westerners."
This I consider wrong without specifics. Smarter westerners have only created smaller tribes, instead of trying to include idiots of the same skin color. You might see this in something like skull and bones, or bigger groups like mormons and jews. And, it is not in the interest of those groups the expend any effort towards propping up the average white person. In fact, there is a tendency towards the application of order out of chaos, which has multiple avenues of exploitation. For one, you can win a race by running fast, or by crippling your opponents (internal order while external chaos). Or, you can exploit order out of chaos as a problem reaction solution plan (the arab spring, for instance).
"white tribalism is required to keep a truly individualistic society possible in the long run"
The tendency towards preferring the government, or the rights of the conceptual group, above that of the individual, has been the case since the inception of the constitution. If whites were somehow ingrained with some individualistic society philosophy, then I'd think the society would have moved to solidify the rights of the individual, rather than to diminish them ("Hamilton's Curse" might describe what I'm referring to). And, there are many ways the constitution can be improved, and yet, nothing in that direction. Instead, it appears the rugged individualism was a fortunate coincidence of societal philosophy of the time, and a great amount of land to expand upon.
"The taboo of speaking about Jewish influence will become discussed more and more as political correctness falls."
This goes back to the notion of handicapping others to gain advantage for your group. It is the same mindset of global government and technocracy that encourages depowering nations and creating controllable populations.
"is genuinely committed to marrying outside the ethnic group, whites should stay committed within their ethnic group? "
"We must set "I don't have to constantly castigate myself for being white" as a bare minimum and see where that takes us."
Whites will simply be outbred. Let's just compare
- chinese people: strong in group preference. strong family. high IQs.
- white people: strong anti in group preference. broken, small family. average IQs. Indoctrinated to be insane.
If you had 100 of these broken white people, how many generations would you need to get smart, rational, in-group-preferenced, individual-minded white people? Frankly, if I put these white people on an island, I would expect them to eat each other, and do a poor job at it.

I used to watch their activities since they had a presence on youtube, from about 2007, and it was pretty much a repetition of marches, news shows, and failures in court to change anything. Since then, I've only seen them become more obscure, rather than a beacon to follow. Further, http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-hampshire .

I suppose the effort to inform idiots who would otherwise get arts degrees not to save the idiots, but to prevent the subsidization of colleges that have prolonged many terrible and inefficient teaching practices. I doubt the previous 12 years will be wrenched without legal actions or top down (Trump) edicts. Unfortunately, for now, Trump has gloves on and is doing things rather delicately.

Utah: the cult of mormonism, mormonism and the CIA, human trafficking and prostitution. Why not just join freemasonry instead of bothering to move from wherever you are? There was an implemented idea of having freedom minded individuals all move to one state. It was called the "free state" project, and was located in New Hampshire. It seems to have failed. Would I rather live in the good parts of a city that has high crime, or the bad parts of a city that has low crime? I'd tend to want to live in the good parts of a city with high crime. The poor victimize themselves. In the matter of selecting a state based on some demographics, the question should be, there are localized demographics in each town, why not just move to the area of town that matches what I want of demographics? Find me a state that requires > 120 IQ to vote, then I'll consider moving. Separately, **beckons

It's lose the welfare state or else be outcompeted and lose the dollar reserve status, and turn into venezuala. And, based on what Trump has said, he recognizes this. However, along with the power section that is trying to subvert the culture (turn the country islamic (obama)), theres a older power section (socialists) bent on world government who's step in that goal is the destruction of the US.
Even if you lost the welfare state, the combination of qualities of our public schools of being inefficient and being indoctrination systems still renders our ability to compete marginal.

"It teaches a few vital of life lessons such as: life isnt fair, there is no mommy nor a government, humility, independence, the value of male friendship, alertness, the fragility of Human Life." These things are all teachable outside of fighting. A video game, for instance, can teach most of these things. Not only that, but not only are some of these things not taught in fighting ("life isn't fair", "humility", "there is no mommy ..."), but some of these things are specifically taught against ("humility" (for the winning party), "independence" (reliance on groups)). And, the "fragility of Human Life" is only observed upon injury, which, when young, is usually much confined due to the lack of strength. I think your perspective might be skewed by having had schoolyard squabbles. And, perhaps Stef's recent video on "play" might illuminate wherein lies part of the present deficiency of parenting practices. But, as far as I got into the video, it lacked a recognition of how the inter-negotiation of some sports, and of some video games, serve a similar, though not comprehensive, method of learning to socialize, negotiate, and experiment.